The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

You're back to not responding to arguments, Dave. Repeating your position doesn't count as a substantive response.

I am not avoiding anything! Remember this...

Effect of atmospheric refraction
If the Earth were an airless world like the Moon, the above calculations would be accurate. However, Earth has an atmosphere of air, whose density and refractive index vary considerably depending on the temperature and pressure. This makes the air refract light to varying extents, affecting the appearance of the horizon. Usually, the density of the air just above the surface of the Earth is greater than its density at greater altitudes. This makes its refractive index greater near the surface than higher, which causes light that is travelling roughly horizontally to be refracted downward. This makes the actual distance to the horizon greater than the distance calculated with geometrical formulas. With standard atmospheric conditions, the difference is about 8%. This changes the factor of 3.57, in the metric formulas used above, to about 3.86. This correction can be, and often is, applied as a fairly good approximation when conditions are close to standard. When conditions are unusual, this approximation fails. Refraction is strongly affected by temperature gradients, which can vary considerably from day to day, especially over water. In extreme cases, usually in springtime, when warm air overlies cold water, refraction can allow light to follow the Earth's surface for hundreds of kilometres. Opposite conditions occur, for example, in deserts, where the surface is very hot, so hot, low-density air is below cooler air. This causes light to be refracted upward, causing mirage effects that make the concept of the horizon somewhat meaningless. Calculated values for the effects of refraction under unusual conditions are therefore only approximate. Nevertheless, attempts have been made to calculate them more accurately than the simple approximation described above. Horizon - Wikipedia Emphasis added​

So the fact that we can see it from 60 miles does not prove of a flat Earth, in fact it is quite entirely the opposite. All the rest of your post was nonsense. On a flat Earth, the only reason anything would vanish on the horizon at all is because of the resolution of our eyes. It would be purely a function of distance. There would be no reason that the bottom half of a building would disapear faster than the top half. The only way for that to happen is if something is blocking our view of the bottom half of the building. What could that possibly be across 60 miles of water? On a flat Earth the horizon line comes up to our eye level but that doesn't mean the ground isn't the horizon! It doesn't mean that anything sitting on the ground would sink below ground level! All it would do is simply get further and further away, getting smaller and smaller in our field of view until it was below our eyes resolution at which point we would need lenses of some sort to see it. And something as large as a nation or continent would never become so small that we couldn't resolve it until is was many times further away than even flat Earth folks believe the Earth to be.

Lastly, I notice that you're claiming that all the footage we have of space and related things are all faked. That isn't possible, Dave. They didn't have digital SGI and other hi-fidelity special FX technologies in the sixties and seventies. The movies that got Oscar Awards for best special FX didn't come close to the detail and realism that we see in the rocket launches and Sky Lab footage and other Nasa films. Not even remotely close.

Clete

There is no dispute that the Chicago sky line is visible from Michigan across Lake Michigan which is about 60 miles away.

There is no dispute that the very bottom is not visible.

There is no dispute that the sky line, with the tallest building being 1,450 ft. tall would not be visible form said point based on a curved drop of 2,400 ft.

Logical conclusion: There is no curvature, the missing bottom is due to distance or some other reason other than curvature.

View attachment 25243

The weather man in Chicago said what people in Michigan are seeing is a "mirage", because the sky line is to far over the curvature of the earth to be visible. There is a picture of a "superior mirage" of the skyline that shows the skyline upside down. The upside down image is the result of the "refraction" of light that produces a mirage. The actual, right side up, skyline is also in the picture.

The right side up sky line that can be seen every clear day is not a mirage, is not a refracted image, it is the actual sky line. It is not 24,000 feet below the viewers from the water front in Michigan.

This is evidence that cannot be refuted by refraction. A refraction of light causes a superior, upside down, mirage to appear directly over the actual object. Both object and mirage are visible, the object is not hidden behind a curved earth.

Nothing I have read about refraction says that all distant things are refracted images. So for me, and many others, saying "refraction always makes us see what we other wise cannot see" to justify curvature is false, a special pleading fallacy.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Atmospheric Looming

Atmospheric looming is the magnification of an object that makes it appear larger and higher than it really is. This does not lift an object such as this ship from below a supposed curvature to the horizon but lifts it from the horizon to seem higher than the horizon.

View attachment 25244

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Atmospheric Magnification on a Flat Earth
Answer as to why skyline is cut off at the bottom on a flat earth.

--Dave

 

[chair]

:deadhorse:

When I have found that "thing" that makes me say I believe in globe or flat I will let you know.

--Dave

In other words- nothing will convince you. You are pretending to weigh the evidence and consider both sides of the argument. But it is a pretense. This amounts to a religious belief on your part. You don't view it in a scientific way, despite your play-acting that you do.

You are lying, certainly to us, and possibly to yourself as well.

 

[DFT_Dave]

In other words- nothing will convince you. You are pretending to weigh the evidence and consider both sides of the argument. But it is a pretense. This amounts to a religious belief on your part. You don't view it in a scientific way, despite your play-acting that you do.

You are lying, certainly to us, and possibly to yourself as well.

The best arguments will convince me.

--Dave :sherlock:

 

[chair]

The best arguments will convince me.

--Dave :sherlock:

No. You are lying again.

 

[DFT_Dave]

No. You are lying again.

:tunes:

 

[chair]

:tunes:

Which is exactly what you do when you reject evidence presented to you as "fake"

 

[Clete]

There is no dispute that the Chicago sky line is visible from Michigan across Lake Michigan which is about 60 miles away.

True!

There is no dispute that the very bottom is not visible.

True!

There is no dispute that the sky line, with the tallest building being 1,450 ft. tall would not be visible form said point based on a curved drop of 2,400 ft.

FALSE!

How many time will I need to post this for you to stop ignoring it?

Effect of atmospheric refraction
If the Earth were an airless world like the Moon, the above calculations would be accurate. However, Earth has an atmosphere of air, whose density and refractive index vary considerably depending on the temperature and pressure. This makes the air refract light to varying extents, affecting the appearance of the horizon. Usually, the density of the air just above the surface of the Earth is greater than its density at greater altitudes. This makes its refractive index greater near the surface than higher, which causes light that is travelling roughly horizontally to be refracted downward. This makes the actual distance to the horizon greater than the distance calculated with geometrical formulas. With standard atmospheric conditions, the difference is about 8%. This changes the factor of 3.57, in the metric formulas used above, to about 3.86. This correction can be, and often is, applied as a fairly good approximation when conditions are close to standard. When conditions are unusual, this approximation fails. Refraction is strongly affected by temperature gradients, which can vary considerably from day to day, especially over water. In extreme cases, usually in springtime, when warm air overlies cold water, refraction can allow light to follow the Earth's surface for hundreds of kilometres. Opposite conditions occur, for example, in deserts, where the surface is very hot, so hot, low-density air is below cooler air. This causes light to be refracted upward, causing mirage effects that make the concept of the horizon somewhat meaningless. Calculated values for the effects of refraction under unusual conditions are therefore only approximate. Nevertheless, attempts have been made to calculate them more accurately than the simple approximation described above. Horizon - Wikipedia Emphasis added​

What are you going to do, deny the science behind light refraction?

Logical conclusion: There is no curvature, the missing bottom is due to distance or some other reason other than curvature.

A major premise if false. Therefore the conclusion is false.

View attachment 25243

The weather man in Chicago said what people in Michigan are seeing is a "mirage", because the sky line is to far over the curvature of the earth to be visible. There is a picture of a "superior mirage" of the skyline that shows the skyline upside down. The upside down image is the result of the "refraction" of light that produces a mirage. The actual, right side up, skyline is also in the picture.

I agree that your picture is of a mirage. It is a mirrored image of the visible sky line.

The image in the video I posted, however, is NOT a mirage. Notice that the words mirage and mirror have the same root. Mirages are created by REFLECTED light. That is light that has bounced off of something. What is going on in the video I posted is NOT a reflection of light but rather a REFRACTION of light.

The two phenomena are not entirely disimilar though. If weather conditions are correct, light can be refracted up and away from the surface which would indeed create a mirage, as is partially the case in your photo, but generally speaking, the effect of atmospheric refraction is for it to bend light downward toward the surface. With the correct conditions, light can be bent around the curvature of the Earth for hundreds of miles and allows us to see well past what would be the horizon on a globe that has no atmosphere.

The right side up sky line that can be seen every clear day is not a mirage, is not a refracted image, it is the actual sky line. It is not 24,000 feet below the viewers from the water front in Michigan.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave.

Refraction is a well known and well understood phenomina.

This is evidence that cannot be refuted by refraction.

On the contrary, it refutes it perfectly.

A refraction of light causes a superior, upside down, mirage to appear directly over the actual object.

No, it doesn't! Who told you that? Refracted light is simply bent light, not inverted light! No one is suggesting that we're looking at the skyline through a refracting telescopic lens, just through 60 miles of atmosphere.

Both object and mirage are visible, the object is not hidden behind a curved earth.

I think that you know that it is. The evidence is building up past your nose on this, Dave.

Nothing I have read about refraction says that all distant things are refracted images.

So what? Most things written about refraction are written by people who think you and I are both insane for even debating the notion of a flat Earth. Why would they bother?

So for me, and many others, saying "refraction always makes us see what we other wise cannot see" to justify curvature is false, a special pleading fallacy.

--Dave

NO, IT IS NOT ANY SUCH RIDICULOUS THING!!!!!

The explanation of a phenomenon is not a special pleading fallacy, David!

Is explaining the existence of shadows on the ground by pointing to the Sun (or other light source) a special pleading fallacy?

Is explaining that your car moves smoothly down the road by pointing to the round tires a special pleading fallacy?

Is explaining the water cycle in explanation for where rain comes from a special pleading fallacy?

OR

Is claiming that hundreds of thousands of hours of film has all been faked as part of a grand spherical Earth conspiracy involving millions of people over thousands of years a specially pleading fallacy?

:think:

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Which is exactly what you do when you reject evidence presented to you as "fake"

What is and is not fake?

This is the most important question of our day.

Fake news: The major news networks have certainly been creating fake news. The liberal press, in an attempt to prevent Trump from being elected, deliberately produced false polling data intended to discourage voter turn out for him.

Fake politics: The liberal democrats and Obama fake everything from their intentions to their policies in order to move our country away from a Biblical constitutional republic to an atheistic socialism governed by a global elitist one world government.

Fake science: The theory of evolution is fake science that assumes that a mindless natural process has produced the human mind by chance.

Fake cosmology: The theory of relativity is fake science that states all movement--the flow of time, in the universe is relative in a universe where there is no movement--no flow of time. This space/time "block universe", the existence of other galaxies and other universes are the product of imagination, not observation.

Fake moon landings: NASA is a political agency created by our government of fake politics. Is it possible that they faked the first moon landing for political reasons? I would say not only very possible but also very likely. Have they faked all moon landings? If they faked the one they faked them all.

Fake earth: If we have pictures of earth from space that are a near perfect round sphere then how come it is said today to really be more like an oblate spheroid? Is NASA producing fake photos and fake video of earth and space? Very possible and very likely in my opinion. Is it possible the earth could actually be flat and stationary as we all sense it to be? Very possible and very likely but not yet a certainty for me.

Today, more than ever before, we are being challenged to determine what is or is not fake in all areas of life. The technology of video is making it both harder and easier to tell the difference between fake and not faked. Harder because it's easy to fake video, easier because it's easier to expose faked video.

Most of this debate is about how to detect what is faked.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

True!

True!

FALSE!

How many time will I need to post this for you to stop ignoring it?

Effect of atmospheric refraction
If the Earth were an airless world like the Moon, the above calculations would be accurate. However, Earth has an atmosphere of air, whose density and refractive index vary considerably depending on the temperature and pressure. This makes the air refract light to varying extents, affecting the appearance of the horizon. Usually, the density of the air just above the surface of the Earth is greater than its density at greater altitudes. This makes its refractive index greater near the surface than higher, which causes light that is travelling roughly horizontally to be refracted downward. This makes the actual distance to the horizon greater than the distance calculated with geometrical formulas. With standard atmospheric conditions, the difference is about 8%. This changes the factor of 3.57, in the metric formulas used above, to about 3.86. This correction can be, and often is, applied as a fairly good approximation when conditions are close to standard. When conditions are unusual, this approximation fails. Refraction is strongly affected by temperature gradients, which can vary considerably from day to day, especially over water. In extreme cases, usually in springtime, when warm air overlies cold water, refraction can allow light to follow the Earth's surface for hundreds of kilometres. Opposite conditions occur, for example, in deserts, where the surface is very hot, so hot, low-density air is below cooler air. This causes light to be refracted upward, causing mirage effects that make the concept of the horizon somewhat meaningless. Calculated values for the effects of refraction under unusual conditions are therefore only approximate. Nevertheless, attempts have been made to calculate them more accurately than the simple approximation described above. Horizon - Wikipedia Emphasis added​

What are you going to do, deny the science behind light refraction?


A major premise if false. Therefore the conclusion is false.


I agree that your picture is of a mirage. It is a mirrored image of the visible sky line.

The image in the video I posted, however, is NOT a mirage. Notice that the words mirage and mirror have the same root. Mirages are created by REFLECTED light. That is light that has bounced off of something. What is going on in the video I posted is NOT a reflection of light but rather a REFRACTION of light.

The two phenomena are not entirely disimilar though. If weather conditions are correct, light can be refracted up and away from the surface which would indeed create a mirage, as is partially the case in your photo, but generally speaking, the effect of atmospheric refraction is for it to bend light downward toward the surface. With the correct conditions, light can be bent around the curvature of the Earth for hundreds of miles and allows us to see well past what would be the horizon on a globe that has no atmosphere.


Saying it doesn't make it so, Dave.

Refraction is a well known and well understood phenomina.


On the contrary, it refutes it perfectly.


No, it doesn't! Who told you that? Refracted light is simply bent light, not inverted light! No one is suggesting that we're looking at the skyline through a refracting telescopic lens, just through 60 miles of atmosphere.


I think that you know that it is. The evidence is building up past your nose on this, Dave.


So what? Most things written about refraction are written by people who think you and I are both insane for even debating the notion of a flat Earth. Why would they bother?


NO, IT IS NOT ANY SUCH RIDICULOUS THING!!!!!

The explanation of a phenomenon is not a special pleading fallacy, David!

Is explaining the existence of shadows on the ground by pointing to the Sun (or other light source) a special pleading fallacy?

Is explaining that your car moves smoothly down the road by pointing to the round tires a special pleading fallacy?

Is explaining the water cycle in explanation for where rain comes from a special pleading fallacy?

OR

Is claiming that hundreds of thousands of hours of film has all been faked as part of a grand spherical Earth conspiracy involving millions of people over thousands of years a specially pleading fallacy?

:think:

Clete

I said there is no dispute that the sky line, with the tallest building being 1,450 ft. tall would not be visible form said point based on a curved drop of 2,400 ft.

You said, false.

So to be clear about this, let me say that we cannot see the "actual" skyline because it is hidden from view by the curvature of the earth. If I understand you correctly, you are saying we see a refracted skyline, which for me is not the actual skyline.

Is a refracted skyline the actual one or not?

With out going over the formula again, tell how a refracted image of this skyline is related to the actual skyline as to where the actual skyline is and where the refracted one is. A refracted and actual image cannot be the same thing, right?

--Dave

 

[Clete]

I said there is no dispute that the sky line, with the tallest building being 1,450 ft. tall would not be visible form said point based on a curved drop of 2,400 ft.

You said, false.

So to be clear about this, let me say that we cannot see the "actual" skyline because it is hidden from view by the curvature of the earth. If I understand you correctly, you are saying we see a refracted skyline, which for me is not the actual skyline.

Is a refracted skyline the actual one or not?

With out going over the formula again, tell how a refracted image of this skyline is related to the actual skyline as to where the actual skyline is and where the refracted one is. A refracted and actual image cannot be the same thing, right?

--Dave

Excellent question!

Every single thing you see, assuming you're looking at it through the Earth's atmosphere, is produced in your eyeball with light that has been refracted by the atmosphere.

Everything from the Sun, Moon and stars to a distant skyline, to the computer screen in front of you is seen with atmospherically refracted light. The difference is distance as well as the variations in density and temperature of the atmosphere between you and whatever it is you're looking at. The more distance between you and the object, the larger and more varied the effects of the refraction. So "refracted image" vs. "real image" is a false dichotomy. The question isn't whether the light has been atmospherically refracted, it's how much has it been atmospherically refracted. This is why my experiment with shooting lasers over a small lake would be so complicated as to not give a definitive result.

As for calculating the effect, the fact that the refraction index varies with temperature and pressure (and other variables) and that these variables can vary significantly over relatively short distances makes anything but an approximation very difficult. But according to a book called "Elementary Surveying", surveyors use the following formula to account for the effect in feet of the observed object with distance:

elevation loss = 0.574 * d^2,

That formula though would only be accurate at sea level and over land. The effect is altered by both atmospheric pressure, temperature and water vapor and so light shooting across a lake would bend much more than light shooting over dry land. The effect can be even more pronounced over large bodies of water due to what are called "temperature inversions" where warm air is trapped under cold air. The light is bent downward by the cold air and then reflected back into the cold air mass when it reaches the warm air mass and then the cold air bends the light back down again and so on. The light skips across the boundary between the two air masses like a flat rock being skipped across the surface of a pond. Under such conditions, which are common over large bodies of water, light can be bent around the Earth's surface over very long distances indeed. 60 miles would be child's play under the right conditions.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Excellent question!

Every single thing you see, assuming you're looking at it through the Earth's atmosphere, is produced in your eyeball with light that has been refracted by the atmosphere.

Everything from the Sun, Moon and stars to a distant skyline, to the computer screen in front of you is seen with atmospherically refracted light. The difference is distance as well as the variations in density and temperature of the atmosphere between you and whatever it is you're looking at. The more distance between you and the object, the larger and more varied the effects of the refraction. So "refracted image" vs. "real image" is a false dichotomy. The question isn't whether the light has been atmospherically refracted, it's how much has it been atmospherically refracted. This is why my experiment with shooting lasers over a small lake would be so complicated as to not give a definitive result.

As for calculating the effect, the fact that the refraction index varies with temperature and pressure (and other variables) and that these variables can vary significantly over relatively short distances makes anything but an approximation very difficult. But according to a book called "Elementary Surveying", surveyors use the following formula to account for the effect in feet of the observed object with distance:

elevation loss = 0.574 * d^2,

That formula though would only be accurate at sea level and over land. The effect is altered by both atmospheric pressure, temperature and water vapor and so light shooting across a lake would bend much more than light shooting over dry land. The effect can be even more pronounced over large bodies of water due to what are called "temperature inversions" where warm air is trapped under cold air. The light is bent downward by the cold air and then reflected back into the cold air mass when it reaches the warm air mass and then the cold air bends the light back down again and so on. The light skips across the boundary between the two air masses like a flat rock being skipped across the surface of a pond. Under such conditions, which are common over large bodies of water, light can be bent around the Earth's surface over very long distances indeed. 60 miles would be child's play under the right conditions.

Clete

I've always said I'm a theologian and philosopher, by the time I've covered all the bases on this subject can I call myself a scientist or cosmologist?

I'd prefer scientist although it would be a stretch, but I fear cosmologist might make some think I do cosmetics.

Thanks for all your participation. I will still see if flat earth can overcome the "refraction" test. At some point there will be those tests that will become the deciding factor. I have been studying all aspects of refraction that you have posted, and all types of conditions for mirages. I don't know if you saw my post on "atmospheric magnification and looming".

I have been learning how to put the video presentations into my own words and arguments. It's been a very educational process for me. I wish that everyone could understand that learning about an opposing view can teach you much more about your own view.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

I've always said I'm a theologian and philosopher, by the time I've covered all the bases on this subject can I call myself a scientist or cosmologist?

I'd prefer scientist although it would be a stretch, but I fear cosmologist might make some think I do cosmetics.

Only if you base you cosmology on cosmetic issues!

:chuckle:

Thanks for all your participation. I will still see if flat earth can overcome the "refraction" test. At some point there will be those tests that will become the deciding factor. I have been studying all aspects of refraction that you have posted, and all types of conditions for mirages. I don't know if you saw my post on "atmospheric magnification and looming".

No, missed that one. Got a post # ?

I have been learning how to put the video presentations into my own words and arguments. It's been a very educational process for me. I wish that everyone could understand that learning about an opposing view can teach you much more about your own view.

--Dave

I guarantee you that I've learned a great deal. I'm no good at playing devil's advocate, though. I just like learning the arguments I already agree with! (That's a joke!)

 

[DFT_Dave]

Only if you base you cosmology on cosmetic issues!

:chuckle:

No, missed that one. Got a post # ?

I guarantee you that I've learned a great deal. I'm no good at playing devil's advocate, though. I just like learning the arguments I already agree with! (That's a joke!)

Flat earth is cosmetic cosmology, good one.

See post #1462 and #1463, and give me your analysis.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Atmospheric Looming

Atmospheric looming is the magnification of an object that makes it appear larger and higher than it really is. This does not lift an object such as this ship from below a supposed curvature to the horizon but lifts it from the horizon to seem higher than the horizon.

View attachment 25244

--Dave

Okay, first of all, the pic in your post is clearly a fake.

But...

Looming is just an extreme form of atmospheric refraction. It, in some cases, may be accompanied by a mirage (a reflection) of the sky between the observer and the distant object which would make an object look as if it is floating in the air. Here is an image of what it typically looks like...

View attachment 25258

An interesting quote from the Wikipedia page on Atmospheric Looming...

"The larger the size of the sphere (the planet where an observer is located) the less curved the horizon is. William Jackson Humphreys' calculations showed that an observer could see all the way around a planet nearly six times larger in radius than the Earth, with the same atmosphere as the Earth, because of looming."

No time to watch the whole video this morning. I watched the first three minutes and so far he's talked about what he believes, which I don't care anything about and proposed the idea that millions of tiny droplets of covex water droplets could "somehow combine to create" the effect of atmospheric lensing. This idea is ridiculous on it's face! Millions of water droplets is how you make rainbows and scatter light all over the place, not focus it and bend it in any sort of uniform manner.

Also, atmospheric lensing is just another term for atmospheric refraction. It's the same exact thing. Lenses refract light.

I'll try to watch the rest of the video this afternoon after work. I'll be watching to see if he makes an attempt to explain why the bottom half of the city isn't visible if, as he proposes, there is a lack of atmospheric lensing happening when you can see the city clearly.

 

[User Name]

DFT...

If the earth is flat, then the outer circumference of the earth must be the longest to circumnavigate. However, if the earth is spherical, then the area around the equator must be the longest to circumnavigate.

For example, in the globe-earth image below, 60°S should be much quicker to circumnavigate than 0°, which is the equator:

Yet according to the flat-earth model, the farther south you go, the longer the circumference of each circle of latitude should be, like so:

Which is it and why, DFT?????????????????

 

[Jonahdog]

I cannot believe there are 99 pages on this wackadoodle topic.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I cannot believe there are 99 pages on this wackadoodle topic.

Only 30 for me, 50 posts per page

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

I cannot believe there are 99 pages on this wackadoodle topic.

You can change the number of posts displayed per page and drop it all the way down to 15 pages (I forget how). Not that it matters. Unless you have a slow internet connection, the more posts per page the better, if you ask me.

Anyway, I can't argue with the notion that believing in a flat Earth in this day and age is bit too far around the bend but the arguments aren't as easy as you might think and the Flat Earther "movement", if you can call it that, is actually growing and so it isn't nearly as unlikely as it used to be that you might come across someone who believes it. This is, unfortunately, the case to a larger degree within Christian circles. Nearly every website you'll find making arguments in favor of a flat Earth are overtly Christian and think that the Flat Earth Model is biblical and that accepting it as truth is a matter of faith in and allegiance to God's word. This only serves to further discredit the bible in modern society and feeds into the already too popular notion that Christians are bigoted, backward thinking and even dangerous. It will be used against us - which I think is Satan's motive in the deception - if he is involved at all.

In any case, knowing the arguments for a spherical Earth are at the very least a worthy intellectual exercise - as is all intellectually honest debate - and could even turn out to be something you'll wish you were more familiar with.

Clete